No, peoples statements can have weight, a lot in circumstances. But the questions, and they will be hard questions, will be asked of those providing the statement. Any flaw of character, ulertior motive, history, will be exposed, and sometimes this is enough to have the evidence rendered useless or inadmissable.

If the USADA get it wrong I can see the Armstrong legal department suing them out of existence.

Wishful thinking. First of all, the Federal case wasn't dismissed through lack of evidence, it was a political move made by one man who did not discuss his decision with the agents who collected the evidence.

As for the character, ulterior motive, etc. of the accusers, much has been made of Hamilton and Landis, but there are ten riders who gave testimony. Not all of them could possibly be lying, and all stating the same lie to the letter.

In criminal trials involving organized crime, who are the ones giving evidence against the bosses? The very people who went out to rob, steal and kill in their name. These types of witnesses have, according to you, zero credibility. But these are exactly the type of people whose statements put people in prison.

Who had less credibility than Sammy "The Bull" Gravano? But his testimony put his boss John Gotti away for life, while Gravano went free after serving 5 or so years and admitting to 19 murders.

Jerry Sandusky will likely go to jail for life on the strength of the same testimony proffered by those who testified against Armstrong-no actual "proof" of actual crimes because the victims were never examined by doctors directly after the alleged molestations took place. So there you have it.

Back to Armstrong-there are others besides riders who have made statements, unknown in number, but the reality is this type of evidence cannot be dismissed so cavalierly.

And the samples that have been mentioned as showing signs of blood manipulation and/or EPO abuse are from his "Comback 2.0, Hope Rides Again" tour.

The other thing is Armstrong was given an opportunity to meet with USADA, and guess what? He declined. The mind boggles as to why he decided not to go, but credibility, or lack thereof, certainly comes to mind. He decided not to tackle the allegations head-on, but decided on a cowardly public statement where he blames everyone under the sun for conspiring against him. Poor Lance...

USADA would not have taken the drastic step of banning a rider from riding without proof of a recent positive dope test, but they did it to Lance. And they mentioned going after all seven of his Tours. Why? Because despite the legal loophole of a statute of limitations, the breadth and scope of the conspiracy demands that he gets stripped of all the Tours he won as a doped rider.

All in all, it's a great day to be a hater. Armstrong has already sent his internet troops out to pass along the same tired message of "waste of taxpayer money" and "most tested athlete on Earth". This public display of hubris is in stark contrast to the statements he made a few months ago in that soft-gay porn men's magazine, the one that highlights the lifestyles of yuppies enjoying the great outdoors.

He said he was done defending himself against doping allegations, and resigned himself to the possibility of being stripped of one or two Tours. He wasn't counting on the investigation going all the way back to 1998 and the possibility of losing ALL SEVEN Tours.

As for the character, ulterior motive, etc. of the accusers, much has been made of Hamilton and Landis, but there are ten riders who gave testimony.

Not all of them could possibly be lying, and all [b]stating the same lie to the letter.

That in itself could be an issue, in that the stories don't match. However the fact that USADA has launched this action would indicate that these sorts of matters are as watertight as they can get. The fact that some of the allegations in relation to the 09-10 period have not been mentioned/rumoured etc till now is also indicative of a tight evidential process.

But then I have seen what exceptional defence lawyers have done to "solid" cases before, so we'll all just have to wait.

_________________"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study.""I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

I don't love Lance since I hear he is a real jerk in person unless it benefits Lance. I do think that if this evidence was known years ago and is just coming up now is BS. It appears more of a witch hunt retaliatory action then a legitimate and timely action for a doping failure. I also agree at Lance's level it is just a level playing field. It's their choice, future life and health they are playing with.

Why would USADA be interested in witch-hunting Armstrong though? Is there some old beef between them?

Lance may not be the nicest person, but he hasn't murdered anyone to my knowledge. Do I think he is guilty. Yes, of course, but then who of his peers were not?; and I assume his accusers are angels with dirty faces; and those accusers will face the wrath of Lance's defence team.

As one old barrister explained to me many years ago when our company was defending an action, he said it's not the law, but who tells the best lies in court. To use a British aphorism: there's no honour among thieves.

If they take his Tours from 1999, then wonder how far down that list they go before they find somebody who is clean.

I'm no apologist for him, but some people seem to think he wouldn't have won a 4th cat race without PED's.

I'm no apologist for him, but some people seem to think he wouldn't have won a 4th cat race without PED's.

This is an exaggeration, but when you consider the massive amount of drug-taking he is alleged to have done, it puts his talents into a different perspective.

As for the level playing field myth, consider how many riders had direct access to the testing announcements beforehand, and how it has been verified that during the 2009 Tour his team received preferential treatment when meeting up with the testers, giving the team plenty of time to commiserate with the doctors and do what they had to do to manipulate the testing procedures.

Tapeworm-as for me being an idiot, you can think what you want. The real idiots are the ones who truly believe this guy beat all those dopers clean, or that even amongst a doped peloton his natural talents allowed him to annihilate the competition.

The doping and the conditions under which he operated, a veil of protection from the UCI for him and his whole team from the very beginning, are just as potent as the doping program itself. This is what turned a husky classics rider who never exhibited Tour-winning talent in the mountains or on a time trial bike into a seven-time fraud of epic proportions.

Lance may not be the nicest person, but he hasn't murdered anyone to my knowledge. Do I think he is guilty. Yes, of course, but then who of his peers were not?

My intent wasn't to compare the criminal activity, but to get to the point of witness credibility. Clearly the crimes of the mafia and doping in pro cycling are far and away in different categories, but some people seem convinced that attacking the credibility of a witness will be enough to clear Armstrong, when this is far from the truth.

The essence of my point is to illustrate that people get convicted all the time on testimony from witnesses many people would consider not credible, but it is usually at the heart and the basis for criminal convictions all the time. Tapeworm seems to think otherwise for some reason.

This is what turned a husky classics rider who never exhibited Tour-winning talent in the mountains or on a time trial bike into a seven-time fraud of epic proportions.

If that's the case we may also throw Wiggins out as well. A trackie even more than a road rider who suddenly becomes a potential GT winner. Like Lance he lost a lot of weight and became focussed. So, we must assume he also has something to hide.

If that's the case we may also throw Wiggins out as well. A trackie even more than a road rider who suddenly becomes a potential GT winner. Like Lance he lost a lot of weight and became focussed. So, we must assume he also has something to hide.

You are welcome to conjecture at your leisure, but don't put words in my mouth. There is plenty to attack without having to make things up I never said.

As for Wiggins, there is no Contador and no Andy Schleck in the Tour and he has a team of extremely strong domestiques to shepherd him over hill and dale.

There are an inordinate amount of time trial miles that would favor him, and his next strongest challenger isn't known for attacking with brute force in the mountains. Both Wiggins and Cadel Evans ride conservatively in the mountains, and will only attack within meters from the line.

If Wiggins pulls it out, it will be due to gradual attrition and not any type of dominating feats of strength heretofore unseen in his background like Armstrong.

The essence of my point is to illustrate that people get convicted all the time on testimony from witnesses many people would consider not credible, but it is usually at the heart and the basis for criminal convictions all the time. Tapeworm seems to think otherwise for some reason.

Again, idiot.

Read what I wrote.

I know full well people are found guilty on a regular basis from the evidence provided by witness testimony. In many cases this is all there is. I also know full well that even highly credible and expert witness have have their evidence thrown out by exceptional defence lawyers due to a seemingly meaningless or trivial flaw in that evidence. This is nothing unusual.

And once again (for J-Nice who has reading comprehension issues) the fact that USADA has brought this matter to bear, and that the propensity of civil action after is high, would indicate that their evidence is as watertight as it get under the circumstances.

_________________"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study.""I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

If that's the case we may also throw Wiggins out as well. A trackie even more than a road rider who suddenly becomes a potential GT winner. Like Lance he lost a lot of weight and became focussed. So, we must assume he also has something to hide.

You are welcome to conjecture at your leisure, but don't put words in my mouth. There is plenty to attack without having to make things up I never said.

I didn't put words in your mouth; never attributed my comments to you, I merely pointed out a similar type of scenario where someone would come under suspicion.

J-Nice has about 1331 posts on this forum and 1330 of them are bout how Lance will be convicted of doping. So please let J-Nice rant all about it. I think it's good for him. No need to get into long drawn out arguments over this.I thin k Lance sleeps fine over this. Whether he actually does or doesn't is irrelevant to me. Everyone needs some type of job you know: Lance, the guys on the USADA....

_________________I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

this is sad. mainly because how different sides play with people's naivety. officials, like usada here or aso there, draw a picture of few doping outlaws who profane the values of the great sport of cycling. the fact that their (fat guys) actions are aimed at high-profile cyclists only 'makes it' more credible for public opinion - they outperform, they cheat. the fact that at least some of those allegations are made based on other cyclist's testimonies, remains pretty funny from a logical point of view - reminds me of politicians who accuse one another of corruption or other misdemeanor.

media on the other hand say cycling is dirty, it's a lost cause in the battle for clean sport, a lonely island in the sea of fair play. every time there's a big story on cycling, it's about doping. every longer article, covering a grand tour or smth similar, mentions doping at some point.

cyclists themselves are of course clean. they don't take and don't know. neither do their managers and coaches. from time to time we whitness 'coming outs' from buddy formerly not in the know, but generally speaking - they're happy chaps unaware of existence of doping in their sport, unless we're talking former team mates.

how this relates to LA? how it doesnt. for those who believe in clean, professional sport, regardless of the discipline, i have just one question - can you please give me your dealer's number, cause i want the same stuff you're on

_________________If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a.... clean cyclist!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum